The New York Times has been giving significantly lower ratings to employees who are racial minorities for a year. Job ratings are used to measure job performance and determine promotions and annual salary bonuses.
According to a report by the journalists' union The NewsGuild, in the NYT
- being Hispanic reduces the probability of receiving a high score by 60%;
- being black reduces the chances of getting high scores by almost 50%;
- Asians are 35% less likely to get good grades;
- whites represent more than 90% of those who received the maximum score.
Striking disparities
The New York Times Company provided employee scoring data to the union. Over the past three years, the company evaluated personnel on a six-level scale, ranging from "does not meet expectations" to "substantially exceeds expectations."
In 2021, 32% of white employees "exceeded expectations," compared to 21% of Hispanics and 18% of blacks. On the other hand, only 25% of whites received the lowest ratings, compared to 49% of Hispanics and 36% of blacks.
In 2020, not a single black employee received the top rating, while white employees accounted for more than 90% of those who did.
'NYT' response
Times management downplayed the issue for nearly two years. The trade unionists first pointed out this issue in a 2020 report with data from the previous two years. Company executives acknowledged that black employees did not have high scores, but said there was no ethnic discrimination because each department did its evaluation separately.
The New York Times is one of the most progressive and woke media. However, a black employee of the newspaper who asked to remain anonymous denounced the high level of discrimination at the company. Just the News remain anonymous decried the high level of discrimination at the company: "Although my work consistently performed well with readers and earned high-level praise, my scores did not reflect it.
The union sent a detailed letter to management outlining all of its findings, and requested a response by August 19. Management responded by stating they were "surprised" to have "so little time to respond". However, days later it agreed to create a committee composed of equal parts of union members and management. "This is a good step, but the union believes the discussions will be fruitless if the company continues to ignore the disparities revealed in the review process," the union said.
